American Revolution
American Revolution (1765 /1783)
The American Revolution is one of the most important events in
the American history. Americans created a new nation after a long
debate for the American Independence.
But scholars disagree upon using the notion of Revolution
1/ The historical overview of the American Revolution
2/ The historical and intellectual context of the American
Revolution
-The Renaissance
-The Age of Exploration
-The Protestant Reformation
-The scientific Revolution (as an event)
- The Enlightenment
3/ Early Histories
-The Greek Revolution
-Roman Historiography
-Christian historiography
-Muslim Historiography
4/ Modern history (1400-1800)
-Renaissance historians
-Scientific Revolution (historicism)
5/ The 19th C European history
-Idealism
-Marxism
-Empiricism
-Romanticism
6/ American History in the 19th C
-Romanticism
-Nationalism
- Professionalization (discipline)
7/ American History in the 20th C:
-Conflict and Consensus in the American History
- Relativism
- Pragmatism- Progressivism
- Marxism
- The French Annals- The New left
-New Social History
- Cultural History
The American Revolution
The American Revolution (happened in a period of two decades
1765 and 1783), is not a single event that happened. There were
causes and consequences due to this event: the intellectual context
surrounding the revolution and how this affected it and how
American historians view it. We cant understand the interpretation
of the American Revolution without understanding the intellectual
circumstances (context) related to that event.The period between
1400 and 1800 witnessed revolutionary developments both in the
history of European and American and also helped to create a modern
sense of history.Both European and American perspectives were
shaped by this revolution (scientific revolution, enlightenment)
during that period. They went to include revolution and the age of
exploration, Protestant reformation, and scientific revolution.
There were certain changes from one state to another. They gave
historiography a modern sense.These developments shaped their
thoughts
There is a comparison between:
Earlier historians:
- Knowledge was revealed by divine authority, the historical
agent is Godi.e. the status of church/ God as the source of
knowledge
Knowledge is revealed by historical agent who is supernatural.
It is something we dont know (whos and what is the force that
changes the history). History is changed because of that force. The
force is beyond ones control, it is divine, Gods religion. -Human
nature is unchanged and eternal stability and predictability
-History is cyclical: once you have the same circumstances, the
same events will happen and repeat themselves.
- The providential philosophy of history implies that destiny is
a driving force for human change.Modernist historians
-The basis for knowledge is not divinity. It is secular
scientific authority the historical agent changes from the divine /
God to man.
-History is universal it emphasizes human development and change
over time
- History is not cyclical. It travels in a linear trajectory of
progress from primitive (to justify colonization, colonial mission
is civilizing) to civilization from an ancient age to a modern
age.
-They emphasized human reason and empirical methods of
inquiry
These broad changes from earlier history to modern history led
the ground for an independent discipline of history to emerge.
Different interpretations of the these facts (dates, events),
how American historians interpreted the American history?
Each generation of historians came up with new interpretations
concerning the American Revolution. American Revolution
It happened into a period of two decades
Cost Taxation Protest Confrontation
If we explain the causes of the American Revolution as such it
will be considered as an oversimplification of the American
Revolution.Before and during the French and Indian war, from about
1650 to 1763, Britain essentially left its American colonies to run
themselves in an age of salutary neglect. Given relative freedom to
do as they pleased, the North American settlers turned to unique
forms of government to match their developing new identity as
Americans. They established representative legislatures and
democratic town meetings. They also enjoyed such rights as local
judiciaries and trials by jury in which defendants were assumed
innocent until proven guilty. American shipping, although
theoretically regulated by the Navigation Act, functioned apart
from the mighty British fleet for more than a hundred years.
Finally, the promise of an expansive, untamed continent gave all
settlers a sense of freedom and the ability to start fresh in the
new world.
As the American 13 colonies were growing in population and
wealth, the British governments interests in them were increasing.
But Britain was concerned about their openness to attack. American
colonies were threatened from the 3 sides by British traditional
enemies: France, Spain and Italy. Both Britain and the American
colonies felt that France is the most threatening part.
Britain and France were long-lasting enemies as each of them is
trying to expand over the other.
1689-1763: Motivated by a desire and a need to expand their
empires, the two countries (i.e. Britain & France) went into
war 4 times and the last one was the 7 years war known in America
as French/Indian war in which France was defeated. In 1763, France
gave up all of its lands and territories to America and hence the
size of the American territories was doubled.This led to two
problems:
1. Most of the colonists wanted to move westward and got into
conflicts with Indian tribes. This eventually led to an Indian
uprising which the American government had to crash.
2. Great Britain was engaged in war (from 1754 to 1763) for
colonial dominance in North America. British officials tried to
rally public opinion for the war at the Albany Congress in 1754 but
mastered only half-hearted support throughout the colonies.
Nevertheless, American colonists dutifully fought alongside British
soldiers while the French allied themselves with several Native
American tribes (hence the name French/Indian war). This war ended
after the British captured most of Frances major cities and forts
in Canada and the Ohio valley.
All of these have cost to meet these costs GB forced taxes.
People were not happy with spending their money for the sake of
North American colonies. British officials claimed that Americans
must share in the burden of support for their defense. The French
and Indian war also motivated Parliament to end the age of salutary
neglect. Prime Minister George Grenville began enforcing the
ancient Navigation Acts. In 1764, Parliament passed what is called
The Sugar Act which placed duties on sugar imported into the
colonies from the West India. A year later, he passed The Stamp
Act, which placed a tax on printed materials.
In 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act. This act required
that American colonies should provide shelter and other support for
the British troops which were stationed in American colonies (New
York).
Americans resented this act because of the extra taxes imposed
on them. Americans throughout the 13 colonies cried out Taxation
without representation. The colonists resented the Stamp Act and
they decided not to buy any product. The Stamp Act was rejected and
there was protest everywhere and they decided to boycott the
British goods.
Several colonial leaders convened the Stamp Act Congress in New
York to petition Parliament and King George to repeal the tax. In
1766, Parliament bowed to public pressure and replaced the Stamp
Act. But it quickly passed the Declaratory Act which stipulated
that Parliament reserved the right to tax the colonies anytime it
chose. It was a way to the British government to assert (express)
its authority, to show that the British government yielded to the
needs/ desires of territories.
In 1767, the Townshend Acts were passed which levied another
series of taxes on lead, paints, and tea known as the Townshend
Duties. In the same series, Britain passed the Suspension Act which
suspended the New York assembly for not enforcing the Quartering
Act.
To prevent violent protests, Massachusetts Governor Thomas
Hutchinson requested assistance from the British governor army and
in 1768, four thousands red coasts landed in the city to help
maintain order. Nevertheless, on March 5, 1770, an angry mob
clashed with several British troops. Five colonists died and news
of The Boston Massacre quickly spread throughout the colonies.
In 1773, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act granting the
financially troubled British East Indian Company a trade monopoly
on tea exported to the American colonies.
The colonies protested. Tea agents resigned or canceled orders
and merchants refused consignments in response to the unpopular
act. Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts, determined to uphold the
law, ordered that three ships arriving in Boston harbor should be
allowed to deposit their cargoes and that appropriate payments
should be made for the goods. On the night of December 16, 1773,
while the ships lingered in the harbor, sixty men boarded the
ships, disguised as Native Americans and dumped the entire shipment
of tea into the harbor. That event is now famously known as the
Boston Tea Party.
In January 1774, the British Parliament reacted by passing The
Coercive Act, known as the Intolerable Acts in America, which shut
down Boston Harbor until the British East India Company had been
fully reimbursed for the tea destroyed in the Boston Tea Party.
Americans throughout the colonies sent food and supplies to Boston
via land to prevent death from hunger and cold in the bitter New
England winter.
Parliament also passed the Quebec Act at the same time, which
granted more rights to French Canadian Catholics and extended
French Canadian territory south to the western borders of New York
and Pennsylvania.
Westward settlements were outlawed. Troops were allowed to be
stationed in colonial homes. Prominent colonials reacted by
establishing the First Continental Congress in autumn of 1774 in
Philadelphia which denounced the Intolerable Act. They once again
petitioned Parliament, King George and the British people to repeal
the acts and restore friendly relations. For additional motivation,
they also decided to institute a boycott, or ban of all British
goods in the colonies.On April 19, 1775, part of the British
occupation force in Boston marched to the nearby town of Concord,
Massachusetts, to seize a colonial militia arsenal. Militiamen of
Lexington and Concord intercepted them and attacked. As a result of
this there was a kind of confrontation between colonists and
troops.
The first shot, the so-called shot heard round the world made
famous by the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson- was one of many that
hounded the British and forced them to retreat to Boston. Thousands
of militiamen from nearby colonies flocked to Boston to assist.
In the meantime, American leaders established the Second
Continental Congress to discuss options. In one final attempt for
peaceful reconciliation, the Olive Branch Petition, they professed
their love and loyalty to King George and begged him to address
their grievances. The king rejected the petition and formally
declared that the colonies were in a state of rebellion in
1775.
The Second continental Congress chose General George Washington
to command the militiamen besieging Boston in the North. They also
appropriated money for a small navy and for transforming the
undisciplined militias into the professional Continental Army.
Encouraged by a strong colonial campaign in which the British
scored only narrow victories, many colonists began to advocate
total independence as opposed to having full rights within the
British Empire. The next year, the Congress voted on July 2, 1776,
to declare their independence. Thomas Jefferson, a young lawyer
from Virginia, drafted the Declaration of Independence and
presented it in a nice way. The United States was born.
The United States becomes a Nation. They had to make a choice.
They were divided into patriots and loyalists to the king of
Britain. For them, they would find justice when appealing to the
king.
For some historians, Americans who tried to avoid (provide) the
separation between colonists and the mother land sent a petition to
the king asking him to repel the Coercive Act, but the king was not
reactive. The British Parliament issued an order that the British
navy can seize and this was seen as a declaration of war.
So the war started in 1775 because of tension that was building
up on around the years because of taxation. In other words, it
started as taxation and ended up as a balance of power. Americans
declared their independence.
The main causes of the American Revolution
Britain wanted to raise money and control the colonies because
Britain faced economic problems due to the successive wars that
Britain has with France. Britain imposed taxes these were causes
contributing to the war.
This leads to the Boston Tea Party: The Boston Tea Party
Protests
Militias
British passed the coercive act
Effects:
-Independence was declared: Washington becomes a leader
-India declared -Continental army + navy arsenal was formed
Long term effects:
The USA becomes a nation
The US becomes a large territory
A democracy is born
America inspired other revolution
The American Revolution can be seen as a fight against cost.
They were taxed in a Parliament in which they were not represented.
The British Parliament kept acting in order to control the colonies
and the American reacted to show that they have some kind of
autonomy.
How American historians interpreted American Revolution? Some of
them are Radical Revolutionists
Others are Moderate
Each generation of historians will come up with a new
interpretation of American Revolution. Each generation belonged to
a particular school of thoughts which are related to intellectual
and scientific developments which were taking place at that
time.
We try to understand the different concepts related to the
evolution: The Renaissance, Age of exploration, Protestant
Reformation, scientific Revolution, Enlightenment
It is within this context that historians will deal with the
American Revolution.
The intellectual context
Renaissance and its relation to the American Revolution
The intellectual evolution
Renaissance: The rebirth of classical values (1300-1600)
A return of classical values related to Greek and Roman
civilization.
Before the Renaissance, there is an age known as the Middle
Ages.
The rise of the Muslim civilization coincided with the Middle
ages. There is a move from a vision of the world related to
divinity to another view in which humanity is the center of
attention.Historically speaking, we are moving from the Middle ages
to Renaissance.
Intellectually speaking, we are moving from romanticism to a
vision based on reason, scientific.Renaissance (1300-1600)The
Renaissance was a great cultural movement started in Italy and
spread to other European countries (England, France) in the late
15th C and ended in 16th C.
During Renaissance, many Europeans scholars studied the
knowledge and arts of ancient Greece and Rome. For them ancient
civilization were the source of reason and wisdom. They wanted to
recapture the spirit of Roman and Greek Cultures in their own
literary, philosophical and artistic works. The culture of Greece
and Rome are often called Classic antiquity. The Renaissance
represented a rebirth of these cultures (the revival of these
cultures, revival of antiquity or learning).
During the Middle ages, knowledge had no place, rather theology
and church dominated all aspects of knowledge. The Renaissance
marked the end of the Middle Ages.
Many Renaissance philosophers rejected the Middle age philosophy
and thoughts. Many Renaissance leaders/philosophers rejected many
of the attitudes and principles (philosophy) of the Middle
ages.
The role of man in the Middle ages
Everything related to man is confined to divinity. Philosophers
believe that mans chief responsibility was to pray to God and to
save his soul because they thought that society at that time was
filled with evil temptations.
Renaissance thinkers, however, emphasized mans centrality and
his responsibility and duty towards his society.
A shift from man being passive to man being active, from being
receptive to being reactive and the agent of change.
A change in the notion of agency, it is not God who is the agent
of change it is rather Man.
Shift: a change in the notion of agency
Passive man active man
Society can render an individual evil society can civilize
them
God is the agent of every change Man is the agent
During the Middle Ages, theology was the main branch of study.
However, during the Renaissance period, the study of humanity was
given much importance .i.e. Renaissance thinkers paid great
interest to the study of humanity (realistic representation of
man). The first accomplishment of renaissance was this move from
theology to humanity.
For centuries, most scholars and philosophers believe that the
modern era of human history began with the Renaissance. Humanism
becomes the most significant intellectual movement in the
Renaissance period. This doesnt mean that there is a cut between
Middle ages and Renaissance. The concern about religion was still
there. Philosophers were not 100% secular. The church started to
lose its influence but it was still there. After the Renaissance
there was the Enlightenment period.
The Enlightenment period (1600s)It is called the age of reason,
the age of rationalism. It was marked by 3 big principles:
1. The worship of reason
2. The orderliness of nature
3. Deism
1. The worship of reason:
During that period, philosophers emphasized the use of reason as
the best method of learning the truth. The first major philosophers
were mainly French Jean Jacque Rousseau, Voltaire, Descartes
(German) and the English philosopher Jean Look. They relied heavily
on scientific method with its emphasis on experimentation and
observation (careful perception) to reach the truth.
Reason
Through the scientific method (means of
experimentation and visual observation)
leads to Truth
For the age of reason philosophers, humans have a unique
function simply because they can reason. For them, all the
accomplishments of science are credited to reason. For them, reason
contradicts superstition, ignorance, uncritical acceptance of the
authority of theology. All of these dominated the Middle ages.
Thats why they blamed people of authority/ the leaders of Middle
ages for keeping people in ignorance in order to protect their own
interests (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church)
For them, reason relies on the scientific method .i.e.
experimentation+ visual perception leads to truth
The age of reason was a turning point in the American
historiography:
Superstition gave way to reason
Divine right .to secularism
Metaphysics .to scientific account Thats why it was called the
age of reason (the worship of reason)Philosophers of Enlightenment
used reason in order to explore issues in politics, education, law,
philosophy. Their arguments were based on reasoning/ argumentation
in their attack of tyranny, social injustice and ignorance. Many of
their ideas contributed to the outbreak of both the French and
American Revolutions in the late 17th c.
Reason led to the notion of commonsense / good sense because
these philosophers believe that each person has a rational will
which makes it possible for him to carry out his own plan. They
contrasted it with animals (their behavior is predictable: when
they are angry for example they fight) which are slaves to their
emotions. People can figure out the best course of action when they
are afraid, angry, and hungry because they have rational will, they
can reason. They have common sense/ good sense. They emphasized the
role of education in acquiring good sense, a good method of
reasoning.
John Locke:
1.According to John Locke, reason is the candle of the Lord set
up by himself in mens mind and must be our last judge and guide in
every thing. Locke believes that man must use reason to form a
state that protects his social civility, life, liberty, for
building a civil society, a government that protects peoples life,
liberty and freedom. These 3 words/principles are used in the
declaration of Independence of America.
Anyone can reason provided the capacity of reasoning which is
allowed to develop through education. He emphasized the importance
of education that allows man to tolerate conflicting ideas and
enables him to speak. 2. The Orderliness of Nature:The 2nd
principle emphasized by philosophers was the orderliness of nature.
Nature is very well established and ordered. There is no
intervention of God in nature. Everything in the universe behaves
according to a few simple laws that can be explained
mathematically. For them, mathematics is the order. The centrality
of man: the truth is there and it is up to men to discover it
through reason, physical laws, mathematics.
Some historians adopted this approach (truth is absolute,
empiricist) and others debated and criticized it and said that
truth is relative (post-modernist/ the Relativists).
One of the impressive laws at that time was Newtons law of
gravity. Gravity is there (= The truth is there). This is
applicable to human nature. Human nature is well-ordered as the
physical universe.
This leads to the predictability of the future / history is
cyclical.
Montesquieu thought that a science of human nature was possible.
He was the first philosopher who tries to formulate the basic
uniformity of all human behaviour. Because human history is
predictable, it can be repeated. i.e the circumstances/events can
be repeated in the future.One of his ideas was the notion of
climate. He believes that climate has an important impact on human
beings in justifying a certain conduct by colonial forces .i.e.
different kinds of governments are appropriate for people who live
in different parts of the world = the best government for each
nation could be planned by considering the countrys climate. This
will be used later on by colonists. This means that the best
government or each nation could be planned according to the
countrys climate .e.g. Free democratic governments are possible in
Northern Latitudes because people in these areas are more vigorous
, have a greater share of frankness and sincerity but he said that
the only workable form of government in hot climate is despotism.
According to these philosophers, since the universe is ordered,
events are predictable.
3. DeismThese philosophers thought that God created the universe
and stepped aside. The universe can be understood by the human
mind. God created a universe ideally adjusted to the reasoning
powers of man. Through reasoning man can figure out the best course
of action (centrality of man).
After God has created the universe, he left it strictly alone.
This theory deism ruled out the possibility of miracles. God
regulates nature so that it proceeds mechanically. This means that
future events are fully predictable on the basis of earlier events.
These philosophers like to think of universe as a clock which keeps
perfect time because it was designed by a super clock designer/
maker. They (philosophers like Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau) go
back to God in their analysis of things although they initiated
secularism. They did not cut themselves from divinity. This shows a
movement from one vision to another ( God is not responsible for
the universe) but there was no strict cut : it was a process of
evolution. They did not detach themselves completely from
divinity.
All of these led to formulate the idea of human dignity and
worth , since man is central. This started in France, there was a
number of philosophers called les philosophes. It was these
philosophers who greatly influenced leaders of French revolution
and together with Jean Locke influenced American Revolution.
Centrality of men led philosophers like John Locke to formulate
ideals which influenced the American Revolution.
In the American revolution, there was all the time a reference
to the intellectual content. The first thing they did in America
was to build the intellect by providing area for schools to
develop. They believe that the reasoning capacity can evolve
through education.
One of the first steps in the formation of the United States
that was based upon Enlightenment ideals was the creation of the
Declaration of Independence. This sought to promise personal
freedom to all citizens and this was to be guaranteed by means of a
new form of government, one that was based on the peoples right to
have a say in their government.
The Enlightenment also helped to shape the colonies in terms of
religion. Although during the Enlightenment there was a very
secular focus, in America this was not the case. The colonies were
still very religious but they used the ideas of their freedom to
choose (that were derived from the Enlightenment). Instead of being
tied to one religious authority, there were many choices in the
colonies and people had a right to choose how to establish and
maintain their connection to God.
Newtons scientific revolution changed the way that people
thought about the universe, leading them to question the
relationship between people and their rulers helping to light the
fuse to the American Revolution of 1776.
Newton created a mathematical theory that allows us to predict
how the moon goes around the earth and how apples fall from trees.
He showed that there are natural laws that rule our universe.
Seeing this amazing success, the philosophers of Newtons day
asked: If there are natural laws for how planets move, shouldnt
there be natural laws for how people should act as well? And if so,
what are these natural laws?
Perhaps the most important philosophers to consider this
question was the English man John Locke.
The political theory of John Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) wrote a book called the Two Treatises of
Government. In this book, he refuted the ideas of divinity and he
uses biblical sources to prove that God did not mark anyone to
rule.The first Treatise is a criticism of Robert Filmers
Patriarcha, which argues in support of the divine right of kings.
According to Locke, Filmer can not be correct because his theory
holds that every man is born a slave to the natural born kings.
Locke refuses to accept such a theory because of his belief in
reason and in the ability of every man to virtuously govern himself
according to Gods law. The Second Treatise is Lockes proposed
solution to the political upheaval in England and in other modern
countries. This text laid the foundation for modern forms of
democracy and for the Constitution of the United States.
The Second Treatise consists of a short preface and nineteen
chapters. In Chapter 1, Locke defines political power as the right
to make laws for the protection and regulation of property. In this
view, these laws only work because the people accept them and
because they are for the public good.
In chapter 2, Locke claims that all men are originally in a
state of nature.
In chapter 3 and 4, Locke outlines the differences between the
state of nature and the state of war. The state of nature involves
people living together, governed by reason, without need of a
common superior. The state of war occurs when people exert
unwelcome force on other people, interfering with their own natural
rights and freedom, without common authority.
Before Locke, there was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes concludes that
natural man, in order to preserve life, must seek peace. Natural
law demands that we seek peace because to seek peace is to fulfill
our natural right to defend ourselves. Unlike a civil law, which
must be written down and publicized in order to be known, a law of
nature is natural and inherently known by all because it can be
deduced by innate mental faculties (reason, philosophy). There is
no common superior to enforce the law of reason. Each individual is
forced to work out his/her own interpretation of reason. People
agree that the law of reason should be given to the community.
According to Locke, the state of nature is the natural condition
of mankind. It is a state of perfect and complete liberty to
conduct ones life as one best sees fit, free from the interference
of others. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a
state and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound
by the Law of Nature. Locke differed from Hobbes who sees the state
of nature as a state of war which could be ended only if
individuals agreed in a social contract, to give their liberty into
the hands of a sovereign, who was thenceforward absolute, on the
sole condition that their lives were safeguarded by sovereign
power.
The most direct reading of Lockes political philosophy finds the
concept of consent playing a central role.
From this natural state of freedom and independence, Locke
stresses individual consent as the mechanism by which politics,
societies are created and individuals join those societies. While
there are of course some general obligations and rights that all
people have from the law of nature, special obligations come about
only when we voluntarily undertake them.
Locke clearly states that one can only become a full member of
society by an act of express consent.The members of the community
must agree with a majority vote to set up government institution or
mainly legislatures. The owners of properties must agree either
personally or through their representatives whatever taxes should
be imposed on people.
Legislative power made by the consent of the majority became the
supreme power. No one can be deprived of his property without the
consent of people or their representatives. The legislature is but
a delegated power to the people. Behind the supreme power of
legislation, there is the superior power of the people. It is
because of these ideas Locke was considered as the early theorist
of democracy.
The question is what if the government does not respect the
laws?
Here comes Lockes theory of resistance. John Locke treats the
legislators who violate the natural rights as no more than
thieves.
It is upon the first treaty that Locke builds his second treaty
which is very important. It starts with the state of nature that is
a hypothesis that says that man used to live in a state of nature
and it is for this that all Commonwealth spread.
In a state of nature people lived in peaceful condition.
Thomas Hobbes wrote a book called Leviathan. With Hobbes man
used to live in a war against nature. However, Lockes nature is
different, it has a social character. Man lives in nature according
to the law of nature which is reason which teaches them that no one
ought to harm others in their lives, health, liberty and property.
There may be war or violence only when the man abandoned the law of
reason.
Yet, in a state of nature there is no common superior to enforce
the law of reason. This means that each individual is forced to
work out his interpretation of the law of reason.
The inevitable result of this is confusion. So in Lockes state
of nature peace is precarious because there is no common superior
to enforce the law of reason: men are equal and each one has the
right to interpret the law of reason.
This situation led to the creation of civil society which is
instituted as a way of remedy for the inconveniences of the state:
war, confusion
A civil society is given into effect through a contract in which
each individual agrees to give the community the natural right of
enforcing the law of reason. Even with Hobbes there is a contract
but everyone agrees to give the right of enforcing the law of
nature to a leviathan: to a superior relationship between the
government and subjects.
This contract has 3 stages:
1. Men must agree unanimously to come together as a community
and pour their natural power so the community upholds the rights of
the individuals.2. The members of the community must agree by a
majority vote to set up institutions and especially the legislative
institutions.3. For the majority, the owners of properties in
society must agree either personally or through a representative to
whatever taxes should be imposed on people.
Contract
Community majority property
Legislation
This legislative power made by the consent of the majority
becomes a supreme power in the Commonwealth. It must be exercised
for the good of the subjects and it should establish justice by
law. No one can be deprived of his property or be taxed without the
consent of people. The legislator is but a delegated power for the
people. People gave the government whatever power and they can
dispose of it. The government is in a nature of trust and it
embraces only the powers that were transferred to it and these
powers are mainly to enforce the power of reason and to protect
peoples liberty. Behind the supreme power of the legislator ,there
is the supreme power of people.
It is because of these ideas, John Locke is considered as an
early theorist of democracy, separation of powers and the power of
law.
What if the government abuses power and does not respect the
contract? Lockes theory of resistance.John Locke treats the
legislators/ government officials who exeeds their powers and
violate the natural right of people as no more than thieves. For
him they put themselves in a state of war with those who supposed
to be subjects to them.Those subjects have the right to resist them
with violence if necessary. This reasoning is used in the American
Revolution and the Declaration of Independence (Liberty/pursuit of
happiness /property). It is the right of the people to remove this
government and come up with another one.
Many of Lockes contemporaries criticized him because if one day
a community establishes a government and on the other day resist it
(because the government did not abide by the laws of the contract)
then it will lead to anarchy/ confusion. Locke made two replies:
-1- Tyrants would not be resisted unless their abuses affect the
majority of people,
-2- and his second reason is that if resistance is occasioned
the blame should not lie with subjects who acted to protect their
liberty but rather with the government which occasioned it even if
resistance leads to chaos. This reply, Thomas Jefferson and his
colleagues, used: they were patriots but they faced the abuses of
the British government (taxes etc). In this situation, political
authority shifts from the government and the officials and reverts
back to the community during the first stage of the contract.
Therefore the people recover their original freedom to set up new
political institutions as they see fit.(people are individuals not
a community, they agreed to be a community)So resistance leads to
Revolution and the community is supreme. Revolution is the act of
the major portion of the people whose consent must be obtained for
the dissolution of the government. It is very important that
government might be dissolved while society remains intact. This
means that people themselves represent a power superior to
government and this means that society/ community/people are
superior to government. This idea had a great weight in the
convention which assembled at Philadelphia in 1787, in which
delegates from 12 of the 13 states met at the Constitutional
Convention to frame the constitution of the US.
For John Locke, the sovereignty exists in the community as a
whole because it is the original and supreme power that defends the
rights of people.
John Locke conceives of democracy as a spirit/state of
mind/culture rather than as a form of government. The rulers are
the trusties of the people who delegate their powers to them. There
is the political side but also the economic side. So John Locke is
not only seen as the founder of democracy but also as the theorist
of liberalism. John Locke believes that Man has natural rights and
the most important rightis that of property. In the state of
nature, Locke assumes that there is sufficient land for all. If in
due course all of the earth comes to be owned by someone, then
there is a private property (when you have a piece of land and you
labor it , it becomes yours). Tis recognition of private property
will prevent oncoming generations from owning lands and from
preserving/ sustaining themselves and this is contrary to the
fundamental law of nature/ reason. The question is: how is then the
fundamental law of reason to be satisfied in this new context?
John Locke believes that when the enough and as good proviso(
individuals have a right tohomestead private property from nature
by working on it, thus convertingcommon propertyintoprivate
property = there is enough land) is no longer satisfied, civil
society will begin. When civil society is formed , the appropriate
property arrangement will be made by concent by representatives of
the civil society. The decisions will be made by the
representatives of the civil society. Locke included this in his
contract and it is the third angle.According to Locke, the
individuals holding property is a matter of natural right. This
right has priority over any civil. It is before the civil society.
These rights must be protected. Any expropriation by the authority
is a violation of the individuals natural rights. The government/
state does not have the right to arbitrarily take peoples property
and then people have the right to overthrow the government (the
right to rebel).
A government provides grounds for rebellion if it acts other
than to further the public or common good. Locke here seems not so
much to be defending the property of the rich against the poor but
rather defending individual property against possible government
encroachment. Property is at the heart of his political theory. So
his chapter on property is integrated within the main thesis of the
second treaty of government. His main thesis is the essentially
limited nature of the political authority. One of the justification
of the civil society is the preservation of property and one of the
justification of rebellion is the insecurity of property.
resistence property civil societyJohn Locke used insecurity of
property in an extended meaning: it means anything a person has,
ie, a right over himself , over his liberty as well as over the
material positions
Was Locke starting a capitalist society?Property is at heart of
John Lockes political theory. The government is limited in scope
and the preservation of man is the end of any legitimate civil
society. Locke imposed restrictions on ownership. Man has a right
to private property as much as he can produce and consume. To
become a capitalist, man has to produce more than he can consume
and to exchange the surplus of money: by that money (gold or
silver), he can buy more lands and hire more workers and when you
hire more more workers , the labour of these workers becomes yours
and therefore you can sell it (labour + food), and the cycle is
repeated again and again.So here property will become unequal as
accumulation increases. All depends on the livelihood of those who
have property. The inequality of wealth will lead to the inequality
of power and rights and the perversion of justice. In the third
treaty of the contract, those who have property/accumulate property
will legislate especially in taxes.
But one of the leftist philosophers, C.B. Macpherson,
interpreted Lockes law of property. According to Macpherson, John
Locke believes landless men are not wholly rational and therefore
they do not have full rational rights.
If you can not have more money, you are not fully rational and
therefore their consent is not needed to set up a government among
men. These people are just commodities for sale (= to produce more
so that wealthy people can accumulate more gold and silver). If you
are poor, its your fault and this idea is held by the Republicans
in the US these days. Those with the capacity to accumulate
property can legislate.For Locke, rational people can legislate and
determine what shall be done (leftist historians theorized for
capitalism). Although Lockes theory was revolutionary, it is not
intended to represent a revolutionary stance with regard to
inequality of wealth because he was seeking the support of the Whig
merchants for his policy. He did not intend to mean that political
equality (equal rights, to be protected by the government, the
right to vote a legislative body, to have property, all individuals
are equal before the law, civil society should be protected) means
economic equality. Locke is considered the theorist of liberalism.
Liberalism is deemed by scholarly consensus to have dominated the
political thought of the American revolution and historians
proclaimed the great Mr. Locke Americas philosopher as the
revolutions guide and prophet. So from this perspective, Lockes two
treatises of government look like the text book of the American
revolution and the source from which Americans drew the principles
of 1776
Lockes political thought had thoroughly dominated the political
philosophy of American Revolution.
One American historian called Louis Hartz, in his classic study
The Liberal Tradition in America, extended the Lockean intellectual
impact beyond the revolutionary period to the whole of America s
political thought and behaviour. He believed in the profound impact
that Locke had on Americans not only before but also after
revolution.The Lockean model (dominated the scene until 1960s) was
challenged in the late 1960s when a historical shift away from
Locke was initiated leading to a new interpretive paradigm which
highlights Lockes negligible influence upon American political
thought before 1966.
One of these historians is John Dunn. He wrote influential essay
only in few cases could the revolution possibly have been in any
sense about the 2 treatises of government of John Locke.
We can see here a demotion of John Locke (reduction in status).
This demotion was taken to the extreme by different scholars who
questioned not only the extent but also the nature of relations
between Lockes thought and American Revolution.
J.G.A Pocock ( a historian and a pioneer in the study of the
American thought) one of the founders of the Revisionist movement
suggests that Locke should be counted by the enemies of
revolutionary thought because the principles of liberalism are
inconsistent with the principles of the revolution 1776.
Pocock and Macpherson are leftists. The Revisionist movement is
dominated by leftist historians and philosophers.
Locke is the initiator of Liberalism and its normal that he fell
under attack by the Revisionists. In the 1960s the American
Revolution thought has shifted with Lockean Liberal thought. The
Revisionist historiography has converted the intellectual guide and
prophet into the revolution enemy. We can see that historiography
was explained through the Lockean model.
A new interpretative paradigm Pocock and Bernard Bailign
Both of them were considered hostile to liberalism and came up
with a new thesis :The Republican Synthesis/ Hypothesis
It proclaims that the Revolutionists fought for virtue sake and
not for commerce. The Revolution was not the result of pure
economic interest but of values, virtues and ideals.
The Republican Revisionism destroyed (debunked) the monolithic
Lockean model. They deny the historical significance of Lockes
Liberalism and to cast it into an anti-revolutionary line.
These pioneers, while at the same time proclaiming the decisive
importance of the Republican sources in the formation of the
American revolutionary thought, stressed American values and
citizenship and not the economic interests. But it can be shown
that in relation to the most crucial issues in the Anglo-American
dispute/ war, the economic and political interests are there:
religious liberty, the ultimate sovereignty of people, limits of
civil authority and there is a question of taxation without
representation. The historical textual evidence testifies
consistently and often explicitly to this through the use of the
language of Locke on government.
So the historical textual evidence is there to support the idea
that Locke is present in every forceful manner. The revolutionary
writings do not support the claims of the Republicans.
A series of essays published in the 18th century about England
that presented a vision of society based on value, citizenship and
participation written by 2 British writers John Trencherd and
Thomas Gordon entitled Catos letters.
Cato was a Roman leader who lived a long time foe of Julius
Caesar.
These letters are called after Cato because he is known for his
high moral integrity.
1. The vision portrayed in Catos Letters Vs. the vision
portrayed in the two treaties of Locke
The main issues that are mentioned are social, economic,
political. Catos Letters highlight the civic humans. They highlight
also ideals of citizenship. They also highlight virtue and
participation of individuals in governing the country. The Lockean
Model as shown in the 2 treaties is considered liberal. There are
temptations of self-interest. His theory is built on the state of
nature. The motive is the preservation of Man. The fact that all
people are equal leads to conflicts and a great deal of
self-interest.
This is based on his theory of property
He was advocating accumulation of wealth and considered that
labour changed from being common to being private (Liberalism)
Self-interest Capital Accumulation
But many of those who supported the idea said that Catos Letter
raise suspicion that this would lead to establishing a Leviathan
(dictatorship) a title of a book written by Thomas Hobbes. He
borrowed this title from the Bible. Just like Locke he believes in
the state of Nature. Men are not good but chiefly biased by desire
and selfishness The war of all against all, and in order to move
away, people must agree among themselves to put on top a Leviathan
to give power not to community but to a ruler and his authority
should not be questioned because questioning it would lead to war (
the atrocities of the civil war).
The war was a result of questioning the kings authority. It
might lead to a Leviathan, Dictatorship.
The 2 treaties founded a city state, a democratic state, a
policy.
From the 1960s, disagreement began among historians about the
work influencing the American Revolution. Clinton Rossiter was a US
historian, a political scientist who wrote the following No one can
spend time on the newspapers, library inventories and pamphlets of
colonial America without realizing that Catos Letters rather than
John Lockes civil government was the most popular quotable
estimeable source of political ideas in the colonial period.
Parallels between Catos Letters and the two treaties of Locke.
Any interpretation is based on an intellectual work.
Leviathan was a dictatorship based on the participation/consent
of people to put on top a ruler of authority. The meaning of
Leviathan in American concept was economic not polical: when you
dont have the initiative especially economically, uniformity among
people is not achieved.The Scientific Revolution
(Te late 1600-Early 1700)
Scholars and scientists increasingly realized the importance of
experimentation and mathematics to scientific advances. The
realization helped think about the scientific Revolution. One of
the main figures of the Scientific Revolution was Galileo.
He used observations and mathematical analyses and his purpose
is to look for cause and effect relationship among natural events.
History was based on cause and effect and experimentation. After
him there was Francis Bacon who viewed experience as the most
important source of knowledge. These principles are important
because it helps moving from God being the agent of change to
reason being the agent of change. A movement from providential to
reasonable change explained in terms of cause and effect
relationship: by collecting all observable facts of nature, we can
find explanation of these events.Another figure also is Isaac
Newton. He founded a law of universal gravitation and laid the
foundation for Modern study of optics.
In addition to scientific discoveries, there was the philosophy
and methods of science. One of the major philosophers was Ren
Descartes who proposed that Mathematics is the model that all other
sciences would follow. Mathematics yielded absolutely certain
conclusions because the Mathematical process starts with simple,
self-evident truths and then used logic to move step by step to
other truths. According to him one truth leads to another through
logic. So getting to the truth is an accumulative result.
(For Descartes mathematics is the mother of all sciences).
Like any innovation/ new idea, this was resisted by theologians
(religious people. But scientists believed that the scientific
Revolution helped relieve the wonderers of Gods creation. For them,
science does not negate God but help reveal Gods power. But many
others were upset by the development of scientific law because for
them scientific law would govern the universe without divine
assistance from God.
Another movement during the period:
The Reformation
The Reformation was a religious movement that took place in
1500s. It led to Protestantism. It had a tremendous impact on
social and economic life. The influences are still felt today. This
Movement began in 1517 by a German monk Martin Luther. He started
this movement by protesting certain practices of the Roman Catholic
church and around 40 years later, Protestantism started to
emerge.
Before the Reformation, Europe was held together/ unified by the
universalism of the Catholic church and also by the claim that the
Holy Roman Emperor was a supreme leader/ ruler. After the
reformation, there were many Protestant churches that were
competing with the Catholic church and with one another and Europe
cant be held together by religion but entered in war because of
competing churches (England, Spain..) and this led to the emergence
of powerful European forces.The causes of the Reformation:
Religious causes: due to the serious abuses in the church, there
were corrupt financial practices and this led to tension between
common men and their church leaders.
Cultural causes related to the Renaissance. There were a
cultural movement as an increasing number of people gained
education and returned to Classics. Renaissance led to raising
awareness that there was a shift in church to bad or corrupt
practices.There were also political causes: kings were becoming
more and more absolutists. The king rules by divine right. They
regarded the Pope in Rome as a political leader of a foreign
country (the unity of Europe held thanks to the Pope) and they
started to resist his influence in their countries. Everything is
moved by this change
John Calvin ( from Switzerland) an influential French theologian
and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principle
figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later
called Calvinism.
King Henry the eight of England he is known for his role in the
separation of the church of England from the Roman Catholic church.
He formed The Anglican church (Protestantism) and the King of
England is the head of the Anglican church up today. The British
wanted to be unique and call their church Anglican Tension between
the Catholic Church (the Vaticans) Anglicans (Protestants)
What is important here is the decline of divinity and the rise
of wisdom-reason. The individual gained more weight as a result of
the decline of divinity.Greek RevolutionHerodotus (485 BC) was a
Greek historian widely referred to as the father of History). He
attempted to study the world through observable evidence and
experience. And as a consequence, the primary corner stone was
observable forces: human activities & culture. So, he was
interested in I witness accounts and he was not interested only in
describing what happened but also why things have happened which is
the reason why we study history. So his methods of applying
evidence and studying history became the foundation for history as
it was practiced.
Another Greek philosopher: Thucydide (460-400 BC). He had been
webbed the father of scientific history because of his strict
standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and
effect without reference to intervention by the gods as outlined in
his introduction to his work. He studied the actions of Men as
opposed to supernatural forces. And he used credible, observable
evidence to establish factual account for the past.
For Thucydide, political forces are more important than cultural
forces to be studied and used as materials to study history.
Cultural forces are not the driving forces for history. For him,
the main reason for studying the past was speculative.
Understanding political events, causes of wars are very important
because these information will be used to explain further the
future events, to make future policies.
The use of what happened in the past to serve as a lesson for
the present and the future. He emphasized the cause and effect. His
emphasis on cause and effect, political forces and observable data
influenced later on history.
Aristotle criticized him the way he viewed history as being the
more recitation of facts and he considered mythopoetic stories to
be more important because they were imaginative and creative and
they contained deeper insight to the church than factual account of
the past. It affected modern history that believed that fiction is
as important as facts. History is also imaginative because it
relied on the unobservable of the past, as it makes a correlation
between fiction and reality.
Another branch of Greek philosophers were skeptics who went even
further because they claimed that since all knowledge is the
perception of the individual so no one truth about anything could
be found.
According to skeptics, scientific history is no more factual
than mythopoetic history.
Greek philosophers moved beyond merely acceptation of tradition
and knowledge as truth and began to use logic and reason to explain
the universe.
The Roman Historiography
Roman history focused more on Romes rise to power attributing
this to the quality of political leaders to fair policies and to
strong political institutions but also to fate.
Polybius (200 BC) directly connected the Greek tradition to the
Roman history.
Tacitus (120-56 BC).He advocated the strict observance of
objectivity in his interpretation of history. His motto was writing
without hatred or political bias. Roman historians focused mainly
on political policies and on the use of I witness account and
speeches as their evidence. Their evidence on fortune set them from
Greek tradition. They did not give specific agencies to specific
Gods but they consider fate which is not observable as an
explanation of events.
Christian historians
They viewed fate and destiny as a driving force for historical
change. They continued to emphasize the influence of religion
specifically the power of Christian God. One of the most important
Christian philosophers is Augustine of Hippo (354-430). He has led
to the development of neutral view. This knowledge spread across
America and Europe during the 18th century.
Francis Bacon / Jean Bodin (16th, 17th c)
The deductive reasoning of the Aristotelian philosophy which
relied too much on reason and logic, did not please these two
philosophers. Bacon believed that more accurate method of reasoning
would be inductive. He emphasized the inductive method which relies
on data and evidence. He claimed that historians should observe
data and evidence first then derive a hypothesis. He advocates
experimental philosophy and empiricism. All knowledge must be
subjected to experimentation based on evidence to prove its
validity. This inductive method advocates observation of data
Complementation of data Conclusion to make generalization.
Bodin wrote specifically on the topic of history, his book
entitled The Method for the easy understanding of History. This
book helped to secularize the history of mankind. Throughout his
book he urged historians first to avoid prejudices, to maintain
detachment, to stick to facts and to be aware of the historical
context of historians from the past. He was paving the way for
historicism Vico s historicism.
These rules for the practice of history were central to shaping
history about maintaining objectivity and critically analyzing
sources o information.
Vico: The father of historicism
Vico investigated history for its own sake attempting to
understand historical events on their own, within the context of
their own worldview. The past is not understandable unless you
understand the culture of past people. He wrote New Science and
claimed that he had discovered the key to history which human
nature and culture changed and developed over time, the mental
world of earlier people differ subsequently from people coming
after them. In order to understand the past, they must first
understand the meaning of the language they used. So the past is
the world to be studied on its own terms. This is called
historicism which is a basic concept in Western Historiography.
Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called the city of God. He
describes history as a recurrent conflict between the city and God.
God is scared and the city of the world is profane. For him history
is cyclical. He imagined supernatural forces which are mainly God
and Satan as primary agents of history. History is moved through
this conflict. He was influential during the middle ages. The Greek
Roman tradition remained strong especially in Bezantine and Islamic
Empire. Bizantine historians continued Greek tradition by
observable data and evidence. But in the Middle East and North
Africa, Islam replaced Christianity and Muslim historians did not
emphasize God as the primary agent of history.
Muslim historians
Muslim historians stressed human agency in the rise and fall of
civilization. Ibn khaldoon (1442-1395 BC) studied secular events
and emphasized human agency as the true force behind history.
The Evolution of Modern HistoryThe American politician
Machiavelli believed that politicians should understand former
histories and the history of previous leaders so that they use
these leaders as models.
His approach to history was specifically speculative, powerful
and strong. Knowledgeable men according to him are the driving
forces and the agents of change of any history. Machiavelli omitted
any mention of God. He strongly reshaped history as a secular
subject. History is not about cause and effect. It is a series of
ups and downs. It is really easy to predict future historical
events. He was part of that trend emphasizing reason.
In USA, in that period, most American historians were local
historians in specific towns of history. American history started
as a local history, so they were coloured by the experience of
their authors and by protestant Euro-centric perspective. His
histories relied on the memories of their writers. They used little
evidence too. Early American histories were more similar to primary
sources than to our current history.
During the scientific revolution, historians continued a
Greco-Roman tradition. They criticized that Greco-Roman tradition
and added to the knowledge of these classical historians. There is
a break from the classicism of the Renaissance.
The main concept that the Enlightenment has added is the notion
of progress, that is , Enlightenment philosophers believed that
civilization relied on each scientific innovation. The past is a
long strain of advancement toward the present day.
Another feature is incredible optimism . They believed that they
have reached the peak of civilization and they would continue to
progress forever.
This view is Euro-centric par excellence in that they believed
that Euro-centric civilization was mostly advanced in the entire
world because it had moved beyond superstition and ignorance into a
period of truth and progress based on rationalism and science. This
means that all histories were relative to the achievement of the
18th century Europe in a linear fashion. For them, Enlightened
Europe was the pinnacle of advancement.
Machiavelli was one of the Renaissance historians. His
philosophy of history was explicitly speculative. Understanding of
the past to improve the present. His focus is on politicians as the
driving force of change.
Machiavelli omits any mention on God in his world. He in a way
continued the Greek and Roman tradition. He strongly reshaped
history as a secular subject. History according to Machiavelli is a
series of ups and downs.
Still in that period in America, most historians were local.
Histories of specific towns and colonies started as a local history
and as such they were coloured with the experiences of their
authors and also with the Protestant Eurocentric expansions.
These histories relied on the memories of their writers. They
used little evidence other than the memories of their authors.
These histories were more similar to handbooks as we currently
practice it.
There was a state of local history, history that is based more
on the memory rather than on the past.
The Scientific Revolution
The historians continued Greco-Roman tradition. They critiqued
that Greco-Roman tradition and added to the choices of political
historians. They did not only continued but also added to it
Development of newer philosophers led to the development of newer
philosophies coincided with the Revolution and Reformation period.
This period spread across Europe and America in the late 17th
century.
Francis Bacon and Jean Bodin became disillusioned with the
limitations of the Aristotelian philosophy which relied too much on
reason and logic to support their conclusions.
Bacon believed that a more accurate method of reasoning would
not be deductive, it would be inductive. It is a way of reasoning
that relies first on data and evidence.
A general premise of theory. So the major contribution of Bacon
was his advocacy of what is called experimental.
A compilation of data and then a generalization and conclusion
from that data.
Bacon as a philosopher applied this to history. Bodin wrote
specifically on the topic of history and he wrote a book The Method
For the Easy Understanding of History: the history of secularizing
the history of mankind. He urged historians first to avoid
prejudice, to maintain detachment, to stick to facts and to be
aware of the historical context of historians from the past these
are Bodins rules
Paving the way for the historian Vico, the father of
historicism
According to Vico the past is different. You can not understand
the past if you dont have a culture of that past. He claimed to
have discovered the key to history. Human nature and culture change
and develop overtime. This means that the mental world of earlier
people differed subsequently from people who came after that.
These historians must first understand the ways how these people
think. They must understand the meaning of the language they use.
So it is this idea that the world is a different world to be
studied based on the context.
this is historicism: a crucial concept in Western
historiography. There were deviations for secularism because Vico
believed that history is shaped around 3 ages:
The age of God and Giants: Everything was commanded by auspices
and oracles which are the oldest institutions in profane
history.
The age of heroes: they reigned everywhere in aristocratic
Commonwealths on account of a certain superiority of nature.
The age of Men: in which all men recognized themselves as equal
in human nature and therefore they have established the popular
commonwealths and then the monarchies, both of which are forms of
Roman government.
In the age of God and Giants people had to obey a small elite.
They are the important elites that changed the world.
The age of men is characterized by civil wars, and therefore it
will lead to God and Giants again
This is based on cause and effect relationships
The main concept of Enlightenment historians was the idea of
progress. So Enlightenment historians added the crucial idea of
progress. These historians believed that civilization developed
with each scientific innovation. The past is considered by these
Enlightenment historians as a long string of advancements towards
the present day. It is not a question of cyclical history. It is
rather that history must be seen in terms of progress.
Another important feature was their incredible optimism of the
intellectuals of the day, that is their belief that they had
reached the height of civilization and they would continue to
progress forever.
This view of history is Eurocentric par excellence that they
believed that European civilization was the most advanced in the
entire world because it has moved beyond superstition and ignorance
into a period of truth and progress based on rationalism and
science. It means for them that all cultures of the world were
relative to the achievements of the 18th century Europe in a linear
way. The 18th century Europe was the pinnacle for advancement and
everything else is less advanced or inferior. The linear tense of
history will dominate for so long. These ideas will impact the
policies that will be adopted by European powers. Colonialism was
founded on the ideas of Eurocentrism on the linear sense of time.
All of this will be consolidated by literary history which led
Edward Said to theorize for the Eurocentric approach of the
world.
Another philosopher and historian Voltaire like Machiavelli he
believed in the speculative purpose of history. According to
Voltaire, the over pattern of history was a battle between truth
and error. Humans develop intellectual innovations with which to
overcome errors to achieve progress.
Other historians discarded other ideas of progress. Herbert, an
organicist view of historical change, believed that history is like
a living organism. It will develop and then will die. For him,
instead of progress, history was governed by cycles that repeat
themselves. He also believed that all cultures needed attention and
they had to be studied and as a result we should not judge the past
by the present day as standards by a supposedly set of universal
values. You can not judge the past to different universal views
(very dissimilar to Eurocentrism).
to inspire many historians to see human history not as a linear
progression but as a succession of distinct civilization. So human
history is not the progress towards which human civilization
reached the peak. It is a succession of distinct and heterogeneous
philosophies impacted much on the 20th century history.
Another historian David Hume also rejected the progressive view
of history and wanted historians to apply Bacons empirical method
sticking strictly to the facts as expressed in document and as a
form of observable method uncovering the truth as they saw it. One
important political result of the Enlightenment ideas was the
American Revolution. Because of that many historians have analyzed
the American Revolution within Enlightenment framework.
Those who approved on social changes of America were called the
Whigs who described the Revolution as a natural result of progress
of the right of freedom of men. Those who opposed the revolution
were called the Tories and the Tories described the revolution as
irrational unfortunate mistake and one important Irish philosopher
and interpretation Edmund Burk . He was the one who wrote The
Standard Whig Interpretation of the American Revolution During and
After the War.
Burkes interpretations were extremely popular among American
historians who appreciated very much these positive views of
events.
But the 1st American history was written in 1789 by a Revolution
war hero David Ramsay. He wrote a book History of the American
Revolution. His book appeared as part of a great literary and
cultural effort to shape the national identity of America at that
time. He plagiarized Burkes account for revolution. Ramsay led the
way for the nationalist histories of the US based on long hold
beliefs in democracy and liberty as being unique to the US.
Mercy Otis Warrens book History of the Rise, Progress and
Termination of American Revolution . Her view was among the most
well documented and thoroughly argued. She was a witness of the
Revolution. She had access to the major leaders and documents of
the revolution. What is interesting is that she infused her account
with her own observation and her opinions about the events. They
were supported by well documented data. She gave historical data.
This book is made of 31 chapters. She covers blow by blow the
historical events of the American Revolution.
The Revolution was thought to establish a Republican system to
bring liberty to people. And the victory of the Americans was a
proof of the logic of popularity of the American colonists at that
time.
She came up with another idea: the constitution weakened the
Republic and made it vulnerable to military and monarchical
tyranny. There were other versions that are considered mainly
patriotic versions. These patriotic versions portrayed the
constitution, the 1st presidents, the leaders in a very positive
way.
1400 1800: this period witnessed a revolutionary development.
The history of European and American thought here is a hope to
create a more modern sense of history. This takes us back to the
age of Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and Scientific
Revolution.
All of these shaped American and European perspective of their
past. Earlier perspective had presented historical knowledge as
revealed by divine authority whereas modernity sees scientific
authority as the basis of the knowledge of the past.
They viewed human nature as unchanging and eternal, whereas
Modernist historiography starting with Vico argued for a universal
history emphasizing Ruman development and change over time. Many
Enlightenment historians added to that and they argued that human
development traveled in a linear trajectory of progress from
primitive to civilized, from ancient ages to the present modern
age. This idea led to Eurocentrism.
This affected a lot their policy and most importantly they began
to emphasize human reason and the empirical method of enquiring
from divinity to secularism, from superstition to reason, from
deduction to induction. This brought changes and laid the ground
work for the independent aspect/discipline of history which would
emerge in the 19th century.From 1400 to the 18th century, there was
a change in ideas = a revolution in ideas took place before the
political revolution. Before the French Revolution, there was the
intellectual revolution. Because all European and American policies
were perceived by an intellectual preparation A linear trajectory
of progress in the 19th century European historiography.Colonialism
, for example, was seen as a result of the intellectual preparation
and the linear trajectory of progress from primitive (they) to the
civilized(we) and different empires were formed. The same for
imperialism, war on terror which is reinforced by intellectual and
mainly informational revolution which helped them to see specific
cultures as violent and need to be tamed.The Renaissance mainly in
art: return to classicism.
19th century European historiography:These schools emerged
because historians became more prestigious in academia. Different
schools of thoughts revolve around major theories and philosophers
and the four of the first influential theories that shaped American
historiography in the 19th century are idealism ,Marxism ,
Empiricism, and Romanticism. And of these 4, Empiricism was the
most influential in creating the framework of modern notion of
history.
1. Idealism:
It implies that in history the focus was the abstract universal
patterns and changes in ideas over time and most of the
enlightenment historical theories were idealistic. They focused on
abstract patterns, and because 19th century philosophers were very
much inspired and influenced by Enlightenment historians, they are
considered as idealists.
Some of these theories continued to see God or providence as the
central historical agent and progress as the primary pattern in
world history (there is a pattern that reflects a linear trajectory
of progress:no cut between past and present) while others took a
more secular path looking for more observable sources/ faces of
change, and questioning whether any pattern of history exists at
all.
During the 19th century, many historians continued to be
idealists.
Hegel (most influencial German idealist) agreed with the
Enlightenment concept of progress in history. According to him,
history is unfolded in a sort of a divine dialectic.
All things in nature give rise to their opposite .i.e. Day give
rise to Night and vise versa.According to him, ideas are similar to
nature. An idea called Thesis gives rise to Antithesis and this
Antithesis led to another Synthesis and this Synthesis becomes a
Thesis. Thesis Anti-thesis Synthesis Thesis Antithesis
SynthesisFor him, thanks to God /providence there is this
dialectic relation and he applied it to ideas. An idea or thesis in
society leading naturally to an opposing force to challenge the
idea and the debate between the two give rise to synthesis which
takes ideas from both and become a thesis.
The synthesis joins ideas from both sides. From the one side, it
is an observable natural phenomenon, but at the same time, it comes
from providence. Experimentation and at the same time
Providence.This is idealism. Everything is explained of abstract
universal ideas. The Enlightenment was idealistic.2. MarxsimCarl
Marx (18thC), the most famous student of Hegel. Marx himself used
the idea of dialectical change in his own theory. He developed a
new philosophy called historical Materialism taken from dialectic
materialism. He believes that real, concrete, observable things
should be at the heart of understanding the world. He began his
history of capitalism by investigating the material conditions of
human beings in the past.
He first investigated how people obtained the basic necessities
to live (what work they did to live), and how to produce these
basic necessities (means of production).
And he came up to the conclusion that each mans relationship to
his societys mode of production shaped his life/ the way he lives.
For example, of the mode of production is industrial then the mens
relationship to this mode is a worker and industry. So, he will
belong to a specific socio-economic class which is the working
class and this will shape the rest o his existence: access to
education, political power, material possession, values, behaviorIn
a way Marx is adopting deterministic approach. According to Marx,
there are two classes, the Bourgeoisie (middle class entrepreneurs
who control and own the means of production) and the working class.
Those whose relationship to the mode of production is of dominance
have greater access to to means of production, education, political
power than the working class whose relationship to the mode of
production is of dependence Material production have always shaped
life and this is the essence of Historical Materialism. That will
lead to class struggle.So all these ideas of human societies, which
Marx called superstructures (politics, morality, education), are
determined by socio-economic structures. Since economic structures
change over time, then they will cause changes in the
superstructure making history in progress. And because the
socio-economic structures change, ideas change overtime causing
superstructure to change and historical progress occurs in
dialectical way through class struggle. So, the ideas are
determined by the socio-economic structure. Marx defined 3 main
eras in human history:
-Ancient society
-Feudal society
-Capitalist and Modern society
Each era is defined by its mode of production. Each evolved to
the next through class struggle. This progress is dialectical
because human beings continually challenge their situation leading
to different ones. Humans continually challenged the ideas and
forms which came before, revised them and synthesized new ideas.
They continually change the mode of production and ideas. This
trouble would continue until in the final stage the working
class/proletaria rose up in revolution to eliminate the Middle
class entrepreneurs and establish an egalitarian society and
social, economic and political order. This is the 4th stage of
socialism which is communism, and of course before that the working
class had to develop class consciousness and to be awre of their
oppression in order to make that historical change happen.
3.Empiricism:Empicist view of historiography dominated by
observable evidence (Humes).Other philosophers : Auguste Comte was
a 19th century French philosopher and a sociologist whose work
influenced many academic fields and 19th century politics as
well.
He built upon empiricist ideas to form a new theory: the concept
of Positivism. According to him, human knowledge developed through
3 stages:
1. Theological stage in relation to region (Nature is explained
in terms of divinities or spirit)2. Metaphysical stage3. Positive
stage (scientific principles)In the positive stage, all human
knowledge will be based on empirical truth rather than superstition
and prejudice. As a result, he asserts that scientists and
historians should be objective .i.e. they should separate
themselves from their own bias, perspectives and emotions in the
study of their subject.
In this way according to Comte, historians could derive truth
from pure facts. Comte, a mathematician, applies the rules of
mathematics on human facts.
By the end of the 19th century, historians, social scientists,
politicians, social theorists mainly Herbert Spencer had developed
what came to be known as Social Darwinism (which was used to
justify certain practices) arguing that some human societies were
more evolved more than others and despite little biological
evidence to prove social Darwinism. There is no empirical evidence
that justifies/supports social Darwinism.
Despite this, the period from the late 19th century to the early
20th century became infused with these racist, elitist and sexist
concepts.
Leopold Von Ranke was a late 19th century German historian who
emphasized source based history and narrative history.
Ranke had tremendous faith in historians to find a truth about
the past and to see the past as it essentially was. His method of
reconstructing the past included exhaustive research and critical
analysis of primary sources. He also emphasized disciplined
objectivity in interpretations and he linked them to gifted
historical intuition to draw out the essence o the meaning behind
the fact.( he linked both empiricism and historical method based on
objective data).Rankes approach has been turned a historicist but
in a slightly different way than earlier historicists.
Hermeneutics is the theory of studying each period as having its
own knowledge system.Neo historicists: Each period has its own
system of knowledge as its called by Foucault who came with the
notion of the archeology of knowledge. i.e. a historian is like an
archeologist who builds knowledge about a period through fragments
(accumulation of data).
Historicity is based on 2 major ideas:
1. History should be understood and interpreted in its own
term2. The centrality of the context, what is called hermeneutic.
i.e. a text can not be literally understood I we do not go to the
contextIn one way, Ranke agreed with Vico that the past must be
understood in its own terms. But rather than focusing on universal
truth and general patterns in the past, Ranke emphasized specific
events and their individual nature. Because historicists believe
that history is cyclical, Ranke believes that every single detail
matters. His concept of the otherness of the past was strongly
influenced by his belief that each historical age and each culture
had its own spirit of the age which manifested itself in specific,
political, religious and cultural institutions and events. And in
order to reconstruct the spirit of the age (past), historians
needed to become objective observers understanding the past within
its own context and standards rather than anachronistically (study
the past with todays ideas) through the lenses of present day
values, ideas and opinions.
History according to Ranke should be studied to gain this
understanding of this past cultures for their own sake rather than
for some speculative reason (studying the past to understand the
present and to learn lessons)
Although Ranke was aware that the historians imagination played
a role in organizing and interpreting the primary sources, he
stressed the scientific fact based on nature of his work and the
empirical method as the crucial difference between history(as a
discipline = a fact based nature of telling history) and other
stories (telling stories). Hence the difference between history as
a discipline and telling a storyJohann Gustav Droysen was a German
(19thC) historian. He criticized Rankes method as being too
simplistic and concerned only with verifying on checking the
authenticity of a historical document. Therefore, Droysen was more
hermeneutical (i.e. it is impossible to provide a literal
interpretation of a text = a text can not be understood without
reference to its context, cultural environment to the language in
which that text was formulated in a particular time in the past) in
his approach.Hermeneutics: context including language because words
have multiple meaning according to context and historical
period.Droysen was more hermeneutical in that he attempted to
understand the true meaning of a text as its authors had intended
it by interpreting the text in terms of its historical and literary
context.
So for Droysen, understanding the deeper meaning of text was
central to the scientific study of history. This understanding can
only be achieved if historians can place themselves in the mental
world of the past. Historians must understand the world view of
past actors in order to understand them and how they react inside
the context.4.RomanticismIt could be considered as a reaction to
the cold and clinical approach of the Enlightenment
rationalism.
A romanticist admitted the importance of empiricism. He
understood the benefits of empirical evidence in historicism but
believed that history should express more emotions and creativity
and this purpose suited political nationalists because they seek to
use emotional appeal to foster patriotism toward the nation state.
So by providing a common glorious past of Romantic heroes, history
played a crucial role in unifying diverse ethnic groups in each
nation and gaining loyalty to newly formed Republicans and
Democratic governments. One essential part of gaining this loyalty
was to prove the historical legitimacy of the new forms of
government, the flaws of other forms of government and the
superiority of their nation state as compared with others. This
concept of Romanticism played a major role in the study of history
because European and American governments funded history
departments to promote Nationalist history ( useful to guarantee
loyalty to successive governments). This helped history as a
profession (formed a prestige and the growth of historical
profession).
These Romantic Nationalist historians illustrated the perfect
characteristics for all citizens to emulate (follow). Nationalist
history focused on the idealized traits/ characteristics for all
citizens to follow and focused on the great mass of history rather
than strictly on politics or government institutions.
Therefore, during the 19th century, history led to the emergence
of these 4 concepts: Idealism, Imperialism, Marxism and
Romanticism. In America, the major concepts that were used:
Romanticism and NationalismRomanticism and Nationalism
Two of the most popular American historians of the 19th C are
George Bancroft and Francis Parkman. They published popular
histories which described the dramatic and heroic efforts of
European Americans ( the elicist, racist interpretation) to advance
justice and liberty. These are called the Drum and bugle histories
. The Drum and bugle histories were extremely popular and in a way
fired the American imagination about its heroic and Romantic
past.Bancroft particularly his romantic traditional approach was
tremendously appealing to American public caught up in the wave of
nationalism dominating public discourse in 19th C and at this
center of this was the American Revolution. Because the American
Revolution is the central story of the birth of the United States,
so many stories about the Americans Revolution with all their
heroes and battles became part of the foundation of Americas
national philosophy (mythology) and a favored topic of nationalist
consensus historians.
Nationalist consensus historians: mainly Romantic and
Nationalists The central story of the 19th C was the American
Revolution because it is the story of the birth of America.
Professionalization( another concept in the American
revolution)
On the one hand, we have the Romantic interpretation of American
Revolution/ Romantic nationalist history, on the other hand, we
have professionalization. University trend historians wished to
establish history as a scientific discipline independent from
literature, rhetoric or theoretical philosophy.
One of the most important institutions to promote
professionalization history was the American historical Association
founded in 1884 and the majority of its members sought legitimacy
in Academia by emphasizing a number of standards:
1. Objectivity
2. Research and documentation
3. The scientific method of historical profession
This American association has a committee called the Committee
of Seven. It created a national program to reform history
curriculum along the lines of Rankes scientific analysis of
documents. Therefore, Rankes brand of history is his emphasis on
objective analysis of primary sources and the primacy of political
subjects. This brand would dominate the historical profession in
the US for many generations. This association prompted national
political history focusing on universal institutions and trends
rather than on local or regional politics.
For the association, personal, regional and local history was
considered irrelevant to the higher prospects / goals of the
country